Hillary Clinton Supporters Have A Foolish And Unworkable Idea To Overturn The Election Result

Some Hillary Clinton supporters have a foolish and unworkable "plan" to steal Trump's victory in the Electoral College. They should abandon it.

third-debate

In addition to spurring protests, the election of Donald Trump is spurring a proposal to block him from becoming President by utilizing the Electoral College:

After Donald Trump was proclaimed the winner of the 2016 presidential election, there have been protests sprouting up in pockets across the country.

Now, an online petition has been started asking the electoral college to, when they meet on December 19, withhold their support for Trump, something granted to them in the Constitution.

The foundation for the petition is the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, something that Trump himself has complained about in the past.
Here’s an excerpt from the petition:

“We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?

Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.”

In 2012 after Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney, Trump tweeted on the matter: ”He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” The tweet has since been deleted.

As of the time I’m writing this post, the petition has 2.4 million signatures and the number can no doubt be expected to grow. Regardless of how many people sign it, it is a silly idea that cannot be expected to work and, just as importantly, it’s a plan that shouldn’t be attempted even if there were a chance for it to succeed. It is true that Trump’s victory is not official until the Electors meet in their respective State Capitols and cast their ballot, and that the result of those fifty-one votes is counted by the new Congress in January. It’s also true that there have been examples of so-called ‘faithless electors’ in the past, such as in 1972 when an Elector from Virginia cast their ballot for the Libertarian Party’s nominee rather than Richard Nixon, or in 1988 when an Elector from West Virginia cast her ballot for Lloyd Bentsen for President and Michael Dukakis for Vice-President instead of the other way around. Those have been isolated cases, though, that didn’t have any impact on the outcome of the election and in each case involved only one elector. In order to change the outcome of the election this time, you’d have to have a far more wide-ranging group of people change their mind notwithstanding the fact that they would be defying the law and fundamentally changing the outcome of the election.

Donald Trump won the election with 306 Electoral Votes to 232 for Hillary Clinton. This puts Trump at 36 votes over what he needed to win the election. Thirty-seven electors would also deprive Trump of a majority, but it would also result in a 269-269 tie that would throw the election of the President to the House of Representatives. Given the Republican domination of the House, it’s unlikely that Clinton would be able to garner enough support to win there, especially since it would likely mean finding a way for even more Members of Congress to switch their vote and the fact that, faults notwithstanding, it is highly unlikely that Republicans in the House would switch their vote and back Clinton. Additionally, such a maneuver would likely require Clinton to get support from Congressmen from a large number of states since the vote in the House would be one vote for each state. In the Senate, it’s even less likely that a Senate dominated by Republicans would support Tim Kaine over Mike Pence for Vice-President. For this reason, you’d need 38 faithless electors to vote against Trump. While I suppose that this is possible in theory, in practice it is the kind of possibility that is simply fanciful to believe could happen in the real world for several important reasons. First of all, there are 25 states where delegates are bound by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their respective states. While it’s true that in most cases the relevant law only provides that the faithless elector would have to pay a nominal fine for defying the outcome of the election in their state, the fact that faithless electors have been so rare suggests that most electors would be unwilling to do so. Second, in all cases the electors that will meet in December are largely made up of people who have been long-time stalwarts in their respective parties who have been chosen by their party to take on this role. When they are selected the state party has vetted them to make sure that they would vote for the party nominee when the time came. Third, even if the plan somehow succeeded in ‘flipping’ 38 electors, it’s likely that the states where Trump won would dispute the changed result. Under a law passed in by Congress in 1887, a state can send in a new list of electors to counterbalance the disputed vote, leaving it to Congress to decide which list to accept. Again, since the House is dominated by Republicans the anti-Trump lists would be rejected unless Hillary Clinton can somehow convince Republican Congressmen to support her over the Trump. Finally, there’s the fact that Hillary Clinton has conceded the election and accepted the result of the election, as has the sitting Democratic President, the odds that either one of them would go along with a scheme like this are somewhere below zero.

To a large degree, of course, proposals like this, and the protests that I wrote about yesterday are a reflection of the frustration that people who supported Hillary Clinton feel over the fact that their preferred candidate lost the election and the fear their feel for the future at the possibility of what kind of President Donald Trump will be. It’s not dissimilar from the feeling that voters on the opposing side of any election result feel when the election doesn’t turn out the way they hoped and believed that it would. It’s also what’s behind the protests that wrote about yesterday. The reaction is understandable, but the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump won this election fair and square and trying to change the election result via methods that, while legal clearly undermining the rules we’ve established for elections, rules which both campaigns agreed to accept at the start of the race and on which they each based their respective campaigns. It is an effort to undermine the results of a democratic election and as unwise and foolish as the calls of supporters of Donald Trump supporters to take up arms if their candidate had lost the election. For that reason alone, it ought to be rejected out of hand.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Law and the Courts, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    Good lord. Idiots.

  2. ptfe says:

    “It is an effort to undermine the results of a democratic election and as unwise and foolish as the calls of supporters of Donald Trump supporters to take up arms if their candidate had lost the election.”

    No. Not even close. Saying “let’s call for the only part of the process remaining between Trump and nukes to do something” and “let’s start shooting people” are vastly different.

    Seriously, Doug, haven’t you figured this out yet? Both sides don’t do it. You seem entirely incapable of admitting that one side is demonstrably terrifying while the other side isn’t. The idea might be clearly unworkable — 36 electors aren’t going to change their votes — but ffs, get over your both sides do it BS.

  3. michael reynolds says:

    @ptfe:

    Dude if this somehow actually worked it would be catastrophic. For us.

    Given that it obviously won’t work, it makes us look silly and impotent.

  4. Pch101 says:

    I’m all in favor of it.

    The Southern Strategy Republicans have learned that you get your way in the American by constantly complaining.

    If you don’t care for legislation that was passed previously, then you vote to repeal it even if you know that you can’t win. When you lose that vote, you do it again. When you lose again, you do it again. When you lose the 50th vote, you vote for a 51st time. And so on.

    If you don’t like a politician, then you hold hearings. When the hearings don’t produce the damning findings that you were hoping to get, then you hold another hearing. When those hearings fail, you hold a third one, and a fourth one, and a fifth one, and a sixth one, and a seventh one, and then some more.

    The reason to do things like this is not because you expect to win, but because it holds your base together and gives them a fighting spirit. It’s not the win that matters, but being in combat.

    Democrats need to learn how to master this game, while simultaneously building their ability to win over independents. Michelle Obama talked about taking the high road, but it would have been better if she had kicked them in the crotch.

    So I say keep it up, even though the specific effort is obviously not going to work. Keep complaining, always. Stop being polite, and never, ever acknowledge the legitimacy of this president. After all, that’s exactly what they were going to do to us.

  5. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    And I thought the attempted election-rigging would end once Hillary was thoroughly beaten, outside the margin of cheating.

    I find myself pleasantly surprised to see this rejected by some of The Usual Gang.

  6. ptfe says:

    @michael reynolds: Please point out how your comment in any way responds to mine.

  7. Jen says:

    Not all of us. I’ve actually been pushing back, hard, on this every time it appears in my FB feed and elsewhere. Not only is it a ridiculous idea that won’t work, Clinton wouldn’t want it either.

    This isn’t how we move forward.

  8. Jen says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    would end once Hillary was thoroughly beaten

    Yes, winning the popular vote = “thoroughly beaten”

    I am completely and 100% accepting of the Electoral College vote, but given the gum-flapping of your candidate when he thought he was going to be on the other side of this coin, it would probably be best for you to be just a teeny, tiny bit more self-reflective on this particular issue.

  9. ptfe says:

    @ptfe: I mean, not to get on your case, but you just completely changed the subject.

    Doug’s obviously got a problem. We need to point it out every time we see it. He spent the campaign equating ethical shadiness with moral bankruptcy. He’s now equating signing useless online petitions with armed insurrection. Not the same ballpark, not the same league, only barely in the same planetary system.

  10. Guarneri says:

    @ptfe:

    Keep it up. This is in large measure how Trump won. I’m no Trump fan, but Jen and Michael (and Doug) are currently voices of reason in a see if progressive insanity.

  11. KM says:

    Oh my God, that’s such a bad idea. Can you imagine the clusterf*ck that would cause? The precedent it would set? We’d never have a peaceful election again.

    No, no. America made its bed and now must sleep in it. No takies-backies. For better or for worse, he’s the President for the next few years.

  12. grumpy realist says:

    @KM: Yup. The American populace have made their choice under the rules that have existed. We now need to live with the consequences. We don’t get to suddenly try to change the rules half-way through the process.

    If there’s a problem with how the Electoral college represents everyone, the time to fix it is AFTER the election and the new POTUS.

  13. C. Clavin says:

    We need to get past idiocy like this and try to figure out how we are going to prevent the demise of the Republic.
    Trump has already denounced protests against him…refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any dissent.
    Trump is on record with his intention to muzzle the press.
    Trump is on record with his praise of tyrants who kills Journalists and other enemies.
    Trump is on record with his intention to use the Government to punish his enemies.
    Something unthinkable until now; white supremacists will be part of this administration.
    I’m not sure how…but somehow, someway…the slide we have begun toward becoming what Jon Chait calls Trumpistan needs to be stopped. It is certain that Republicans do not intend to.

  14. C. Clavin says:

    @Jen:

    be best for you to be just a teeny, tiny bit more self-reflective

    Jenos…self-reflective? That’s a fwcking hoot…

  15. Slugger says:

    The Democratic Party candidate lost an election. If they want to return to winning, I suggest they and their adherents sit down, take a big breath, and do some thinking. These kind of quixotic actions will be forgotten by Thanksgiving. More consequential actions like destroying some Toyotas at a dealership in Portland will clearly result in alienating many who were somewhat equivalent. Stupid actions will not produce a Democratic president.
    How about going to Ohio and Pennsylvania and talking to the people there? How did those states go from blue to red?
    Sometimes when you lose, it’s not because the other guy cheated or the refs blew it. Sometimes you achieved defeat through poor strategy and poor execution.
    Again, I caution all to be careful in believing my opinions. Recent events have shown me to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

  16. MikeSJ says:

    For some reason I keep thinking this plan involves drum circles and puppets. And weed. Lots of weed…

  17. Moosebreath says:

    This is beyond dopey. Even if a sufficient number of electors were actually thinking of voting for someone other than Trump (which is unlikely, as the primary criteria by which they are chosen is that they are faithful party folks), then by far the most likely event is that they would choose another Republican, such as Pence. That way, they can have Congress choose the new President, knowing full well that it will be choosing between Trump and Pence.

    And even then, if any Congressperson went for Pence, it would be committing career suicide, as Trump supporters would never vote for them again. So this is just a “not gonna happen”.

  18. Franklin says:

    I’m taking the advice of Obama and Clinton, which is basically to give Trump a chance. It doesn’t mean I’m giving up my right to protest or organize against some of the things he will likely do, or complaining about his apparent misogyny/racism/inexperience/you name it.

    But it does mean respecting the outcome. Let his supporters figure out in four years whether he helped the working class. I very much doubt that he will have, but again I’ll give him that chance.

    Look, right now Republicans are rejoicing in telling us that we don’t get it, that we don’t understand America. While it’s actually kind of a stupid argument, considering a swing of just a few hundred thousand votes would have changed the outcome (so maybe we don’t understand that whopping 1% of American voters who didn’t vote how we expected). But try not to make it look like we misunderstand a full half of the electorate by trying to overturn this result.

  19. Andrew says:

    The election is over. We have President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

    Mr. Trump has already started to shift into the Neo-Con he was going to be if elected.

    Mr. Trump may not have ever thought he would have gotten this far. However, what happens in the next two years, as well as the next four. It is all going to be left on his head, as well as every person that voted for him for whatever reason.

    Trump is our next president, and he will be held accountable. No matter how many fingers he points at whomever else, or how many fingers are pointed at people by his supporters. The ball is now in their court, and this “I am a victim because X!!” is no longer an acceptable excuse.
    You wanted control of the government’s Executive and Legislative branches, and Supreme Court?

    This what you wanted, this is what you are getting.

    (To argue the legitimacy of President Trump puts that person on the same level as a birther, same level as the Kenyan Usurper Parrot. These types are not what makes America Great. And it certainly will not make the Oval Office great, either. Trump will have his chance to impress, but for right now he is starting way behind the eight ball.)

  20. Pch101 says:

    @Moosebreath:

    Of course it isn’t going to work. But that isn’t the reason to do it.

  21. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Pointless, but so is writing an entire blog piece about it – which makes me wonder if you aren’t slightest bit worried about it.

    No – Amuhrka wanted this. Let them enjoy every last painful ounce of it for the next four years. When their jobs don’t come back, they haven’t gotten their wall, they’re still sweating foreclosure and they’ve lost their healthcare, they’ll have nobody to blame for it but themselves. They’re too stupid to be saved.

    But hey, thanks for the tax cut

  22. Pch101 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    It’s tough to argue that this is what the country wanted when Trump received fewer votes than his rival Clinton and his predecessor Romney.

    Ironically, the argument that this low-turnout, second-place-coming-in-first election is the will of the people is made by the Trump fans and those who hate them. Both sides are employing their memes while avoiding the data that tells us that a lot of Americans didn’t like any of their choices or were otherwise indifferent about the outcome.

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Truthfully, if their complacent asses were so happy to sit back and pout, instead of voting when faced with the possibility of someone like Trump, they can enjoy the chaos they’ve helped usher in as well. I think I may be coming to the conclusion that the whole thing – the whole country – is just too stupid, or too complacent, or too brain addled reality TV watcher to survive. Rome fell, in spectacular fashion, and despite the Goths it had died from the inside long before it burned. We’re not so somehow gosh darn special that we can’t suffer the same fate.

    Nah – they’re just too stupid to be saved. Let them watch Survivor while it burns down around them.

  24. S. Fields says:

    @Franklin:

    Amen.

    There’s no reason to challenge Trump’s legitimacy as President. That’s the Birther Way and it lacks not only validity, but also effectiveness.

    Yet, there’s plenty of mileage to be had from keeping a laser focus on Trump’s unfitness as President. Trump will be demonstrating his unfitness almost daily and his supporters and enablers should be made to face up to it every single time.

  25. Pch101 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    So they want to burn the place down, and you want to keep the fire trucks from arriving on the scene.

    You want a bunch of thugs to take over the place just because several hundred thousand Democrats were foolish enough to stay home? You want your buddies such as Zero Hedge Guarneri to praise you for having the “good sense” to capitulate? Be a patriot and fight for your country, FFS.

  26. Benjamin Wolf says:

    @ptfe: Your argument is “both sides don’t do it so let’s have a petition.”

    Michael’s argument is “this will backfire and make us look even weaker and more foolish than we already do.”

    Seems to address your comment pretty well.

  27. S. Fields says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    When their jobs don’t come back, they haven’t gotten their wall, they’re still sweating foreclosure and they’ve lost their healthcare, they’ll have nobody to blame for it but themselves.

    They’ll try to blame someone else and Democrats simply can’t let them. The Left will have the truth on their side and while the history of that mattering is poor, this must be where the fight takes place.

    The Trumpkins are going to be so pissed when the dream they’ve been promised of a white person, blue collar utopia doesn’t materialize. Their wrath must be directed back at Trump through all means available.

  28. bill says:

    @michael reynolds: with age comes wisdom Mike! it does suck when your candidate doesn’t win but these crybabies are off the hook. colleges are cancelling classes and having grief sessions for these thin skinned kids who can’t seem to cope with anything.
    good reply, we rarely agree on much that was really good!

  29. JKB says:

    Unlike someone like Bill Ayers who might be a Democrat elector, the Republican electors, being active party members, are likely to have significant social, business and financial interests in their states. To abandon their oath and not vote as those who selected them were told they would, would mean the loss of any standing in their communities and a significant decrease in their business prospects. Not to mention, the very real possibility that as social pariah in their states, they and their families would have to move out of the state in the dark of night.

    Does anyone really believe these people who knew they were to vote for Trump would throw their life away for some constitutional crisis without something significant altering what was known before election day?

  30. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    Not at all. I’m just saying that, for the first time in my life, I no longer care one way or the other. I’m taken care of, quite nicely. Their mess is their mess. Let them enjoy their creation.

  31. JKB says:

    @Pch101: because several hundred thousand Democrats were foolish enough to stay home?

    The Democratic overseers should have used bigger whips to GOTV. Hell, in many urban districts, Boston, Phili, etc, Uber, Lyft, etc. were offering free or discount rides to the polls.

    Trump held out the dream of making America great again and that was enough to get his voters out.

  32. Pch101 says:

    Funny how the resident burn-it-down right-wing bomb throwers are telling you that you are wise and wonderful for laying down like lambs.

    Ask yourselves why they are praising you for behavior that they would condemn and detest and denounce as RINO if it came from their side.

    This is the plantation mentality in action. The overseer gets to beat the slaves, and the slaves are supposed to thank them for the punishment.

  33. Andrew says:

    I do think there should be a law, that if you run as a Christian in this “Christian Nation”. You must stand in front of the press and proclaim.
    “I love thy neighbor, even if they are not white or Christian. They can be republican, democratic, or independent. They can be gay, bisexual, transsexual, black, Hispanic, or any other race. And just as Jesus taught, I will love them.”

    Oh, wait, that would actually mean we are a “Christian Nation.” My mistake.

  34. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @S. Fields:

    The Trumpkins are going to be so pissed when the dream they’ve been promised of a white person, blue collar utopia doesn’t materialize. Their wrath must be directed back at Trump through all means available.

    They’re going to continue to be pissed, at anybody and everybody who isn’t exactly like them and doesn’t hail from their small little burg, until (or indeed IF) they figure out that their dream is over. There is no “they’ll blame Democrats” or “they’ll blame Republicans”. It’s “they blame whatever target they can find”.

    Their choices are continue to wallow in self-pity and anger beside a shuttered factory or get off of your asses and effect some change in your own life. Until they finally get it through their small minds that now, today, is their norm, not 1955, then they are beyond saving.

    And, truthfully, beyond my concern. I’ve taken care of me. They can take care of them.

  35. michael reynolds says:

    @JKB:

    Give me your plan for Making America Great Again. Not the whole plan, which I’m sure is detailed and extensive, but let’s say your Top Five things to do to MAGA.

    And no, slogans don’t count. Gimme some detail.

    1)
    2)
    3)
    4)
    5)

    It’s a genuine offer. Take me up on it. Prove you actually have something.

  36. carla gorecki says:

    I recall a debate where Hilary said it take 4 minutes for the President to call for the codes then for it to be done, I also sa her Vice pres. she chose out twice on national tv that he has the codes right by him in a brief case that he pointed out, never once did I see trump as reckless as Hilary and if more ppl would pay attention and read more about the election and about Hilary, they would definitely change their minds, she is awful and into some evil kind of stuff, she is stealing from the poor people of Haiti and the yare so under her control it is frightening for them, she cares about no one but herself and Trump although at time seemed unsteady, I think it w because all the lies and none have been proven, Hilary’s have all been documented on emails she tried to destroy, ppl just need to accept the outcome and give him a chance to do is best job before trying to give it to that criminal Hilary-2138464″>ptfe:

  37. Terrye Cravens says:

    I don’t think anyone seriously believes anything like this is going to happen. I can’t stand Trump either, but it is what it is…Interestingly I did hear today that he is not going to go for a repeal of all of Obamacare..Who knows what Trump will really do? I think this has been a show for him anyway. A big reality show and now he is stuck with the results.

  38. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @carla gorecki:

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is writ large why I no longer give a shit about the white working class. They’re too stupid to be saved.

  39. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @JKB:

    Trump held out the dream of making America great again and that was enough to get his voters out.

    P. T Barnum once unloaded a shipment of “white salmon” – by sticking labels on it that read “guaranteed not to go pink in the can”. WTF even is white salmon?

    Nobody ever did badly by underestimating the stupidity of the American voter. They want to be lied to, so they were.

  40. gVOR08 says:

    An online petition? Doug, you’re nut picking.

    the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump won this election fair and square

    He won the vote fair and square. The election? Given Assange, Russian hacking fed to Trump’s campaign, and Comey, I don’t know that I’d go that far. Think that the press, Congress and the FBI will investigate Russian hacking with the zeal they displayed toward Hillary’s damn emails?

  41. Terrye Cravens says:

    Keep in mind that the Birther, Show us your Birth certificate gambit was nonsense too, but it put Trump where he is today. That was his launching pad. Maybe these Democrats are trying to do the same kind of thing…push this issue that Trump is the legal winner, but not really legitimate.

  42. Jim Brown 32 says:

    I think some bad assumptions are being made: About 60% of the people that voted for Trump DONT LIKE HIM. Only about 30% of Trump voters expect him to be able to deliver. So no—Trump voters aren’t going to have buyers remorse en masse as seems to be the sentiment at OTB. I distinctly remember the buyers remorse invocations by McCain and Romney supporters—there’s hardly ever buyers remorse. Its what partisans tell themselves to ease the butt hurt. In Trumps case, most of his voters already dislike him and hardly any of them think his campaign rhetoric will come to pass.

    This is easy–a protest vote occurred against the Republican Establishment and against the Clintons. It’s really that simple. People that previously supported President Obama either stayed at home or voted for Trump. People that hated both Trump and Clinton voted to roll the dice on Trump 2-1. HRC was a non-starter. I think its bad precedent to go down the road of familial Presidencies anyway.

    How about blaming yourselves? (Assuming you’re a Democrat) The Democratic response to half the country that doesn’t live in an urban metropolis–is move to the city for opportunity. Well those people don’t particularly accept that. Its ironic that the Republican advice for poor inner city people is to move as well. That doesn’t stop Democrats from trying to revitalize inner cities. Democrats have to stop the margins that they underperform in suburban and a few rural areas…or you’ll have to wait until another Obama / Bill Clinton super politician comes on the scene. It starts with the political will to do so.

  43. dxq says:

    republicans wanted the president, now republicans get the president. Aside from my friends who will die as a result, fine. Let’s see what a republican president does.

  44. ptfe says:

    @Benjamin Wolf: Reading comprehension fail. Try again.

    I said nothing about the petition except that was “unworkable” (and, in the follow-up, “pointless”.) My comment was specifically about equating a call to attempt a process move with a call for armed insurrection.

    If you want to evaluate something, read the actual words instead of substituting something that isn’t there.

  45. Guarneri says:

    @Pch101:

    Dude. Time to grow up and return to reality. You lost. Deal with it or face perpetual wilderness. The country works better with two parties, and not one in need of psychotherapy

    Oh, and it looks like Zerohedge and Guarneri were right and knew the economy actually stinks. This was in large measure a straight pocketbook election. Stay clueless at your own peril.

  46. Guarneri says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Boo-hoo. Another petulant brat heard from.

  47. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Guarneri:

    Whatever gave you that idea? I’m already mentally spending the 500 grand or so Trump’s tax proposals will save me. In fact, I may even decide to become a Republican. Who knows?

    If you’re looking for someone to take the bait, look elsewhere. I don’t do bush league, and you’ve never been much more than that even on your best day.

  48. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    Well those people don’t particularly accept that

    Beggars can’t be choosers. You think their lives are going to improve one iota going forward?

    Helpful hint – tax cuts are meaningless if you’re unemployed. If they want to improve their lives, then they need to suck it up, learn some humility, find a marketable skill and go to where that skill has a buyer.

    Otherwise they’re going to spend the rest of their miserable lives waiting to die in Broke Ass, Idaho. Cold, hard truth.

    Now, of course, there will probably be less money available to fund that sort of retraining going forward, but you get what you voted for.

    I can’t speak for others, but speaking for myself, I find myself caring much less about that than I did a week ago.

    And you come back with “They don’t accept that?” No problem, then enjoy your SPAM and wait for your house to be auctioned, otherwise grow the f*ck up.

  49. An Interested Party says:

    So no—Trump voters aren’t going to have buyers remorse en masse as seems to be the sentiment at OTB.

    No, they will just want something shiny and new in the near future…it seems like a lot of voters seem to like candidates that they can pour all their hopes and dreams into not even realizing what they are doing or what they are really getting with their vote…

    Oh, and it looks like Zerohedge and Guarneri were right and knew the economy actually stinks.

    And who among us actually believes that Trump, Ryan, and McConnell and whatever policies they cook up will fix this…

  50. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: With the amount of leverage these people have at all levels of gov’t. I think they have more leverage than you’re giving them credit for. Especially if they get to the upper hand in redistricting after the next Census. Time will tell.

  51. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    They vote Republican. How, exactly, do you suppose they can gerrymander it any farther than they did in 2010?

    And even if they somehow do, you’re missing the point: THEY VOTE REPUBLICAN. They vote for economic policies which, at best, just ensure that their misery will continue unabated, while the people they hate – people like me – profit from their stupidity.

    They somehow make the country more Republican? How does that not translate into them getting screwed that much harder and me laughing all the way to the bank?

    You know, the fun thing about doing what I do for a living is that I know the tax code pretty much inside out. I could easily structure my earnings such that I pay next to nothing in taxes, and, speaking frankly, they need people like me to pay for what they’re going to eventually need to reclaim their broken lives. They lose people like me as allies and what do they have left? Dave Koch? Donald Trump?? LOL Whew …

    One of the most eye-opening things about this election is the extent to which people will vote against their own self-interest, over and over and over again, yet never learn from it.

    Nah, I’m out. If they someday wake up and decide that they want something better than DeadAssFactoryTown, OH, there might be hope for them, otherwise, like I said – Hey, enjoy your SPAM and thanks for the tax cut. Your vote; your problem.

  52. Tim says:

    @pch101:

    just because several hundred thousand Democrats were foolish enough to stay home?

    As of today’s tally, Hillary Clinton got 5,448,195 less votes than Barack Obama did in 2012 and almost ten million less than he did in 2008. While “several thousand” more votes for Hillary in exactly the right places may have won the election for her, you can’t count on Democrats in those locations voting for her. It’s quite obvious that many blue collar Democrats voted against their candidate and many more gave their opinion of Clinton by just not showing up to vote, at least in the Presidential election.

    I believe that, in the end, we will find that a record number of people DID show up to vote but did not cast a vote at the top of the ticket and it won’t be just Democrats who did that. That speaks volumes about how fed up Americans were about the choices they were given.

    And please, don’t mistake me for a Trump supporter. I did not vote for either of them and I feel wonderful about not having done so.

  53. An Interested Party says:

    I did not vote for either of them and I feel wonderful about not having done so.

    I wonder if you will feel the same way in 2-4 years…

  54. Tim says:

    @An Interested Party:

    I wonder if you will feel the same way in 2-4 years

    Absolutely! I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils.

    Besides, I live in Maryland, which went solidly for Hillary.

    You can try to guilt everybody who didn’t vote for one of them all you want, but I’m telling you, it won’t work and it just makes you look petty for trying to place blame where it’s not warranted.

  55. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    Hillary Clinton won more votes than Trump.

    Mitt Romney won more votes than Trump.

    Barack Obama won more votes than Trump.

    I’m noticing a pattern here…

  56. An Interested Party says:

    You can try to guilt everybody who didn’t vote for one of them all you want, but I’m telling you, it won’t work and it just makes you look petty for trying to place blame where it’s not warranted.

    I’m not trying to guilt anyone, I just asked if you would feel the same way in the future…certainly living in Maryland allows you to easily feel the way you do…

  57. Tim says:

    @An Interested Party:

    My apologies. I read more into your comment than I should have. And yes, living in Maryland as a Libertarian-leaning Moderate Republican has given me ample opportunity to realize that I’m normally swimming against the current of most of those who surround me.

  58. dxq says:

    50 million republican voters were complete retards. And there weren’t enough democrats to stop them.

  59. dxq says:

    I knew republicans were really stupid people, but this pretty much confirms it.

  60. Ben Wolf says:

    Keep in mind the Republicans hate Trump; he’s uncontrollable and doesn’t share their anti-human ideology. They want Pence who is, by nearly any measure, much worse and they’ll be rooting about like pigs after truffles for an opportunity to force Trump out of office and make it look like the Democrats’ fault.

  61. grumpy realist says:

    @Ben Wolf: Another reason why this–well, I can’t even call it a “Hail Mary pass” because where in the world has a petition ever changed anything? You can’t even call Martin Luther’s theses a petition–CRAP on line is stupid. There’s something called “impeachment” which I have no doubt but that will be immediately used by the lickspittles in the House and Senate if they see Trump doing anything that is going to threaten their sweet, sweet salaries.

    The system has not yet shown it is irrevocably broken. Wait.

  62. grumpy realist says:

    Josh titled this one “Dog catches the car, panics.

  63. Skookum says:

    Yes, this strategy will fail. That’s not what’s important. The goal is to communicate to Trump and the Republican congress in the only way they understand: Resistance. The attempt is not illegal, but it is a protest that puts him on notice that he did not win the popular vote and did *not* win the election fair and square. Russia interfered with our election, and Comey created a unfair November surprise. If those who fear Trump’s assumption of power do not speak up now, with a strong voice, and put him on notice that he needs to earn the trust of all Americans, we will have lost any meaningful way to encourage bi-partisan political dialogue that is necessary for our democracy to work.

  64. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Benjamin Wolf: No, his point was “let’s have a petiton”=/=”get out your guns we gonna kill Hillary.”

  65. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Interestingly enough, this is the same attitude displayed by some of those who you referred to in your previous post as “complacent asses.” Certainly most are just complacent asses, but some of us really want to see if the GOP can either lead or bring their party and philosophy to final ruin.

    By the way, I see you’re planning a move to Paris. I hope you enjoy your new setting. Welcome to the Complacent Asses Club.

  66. stonetools says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Are the recriminations done here yet? Guess not.
    I agree the Electoral College thing isn’t going to work , but then repeatedly repealing the ACA didn’t work either-till now.Symbolism matters, and taking symbolic actions rejecting the legitimacy of President Trump may be something that will energize an emotionally shattered Democratic Party base.’
    AS for me, I am not taking symbolic action-I’m taking action. I joined my local Democratic Party organization.I am going to volunteer for the local chapter of the ACLU. Im going to look into joining any organization that can resist Trump. The Resistance begins now.
    The OTB commentariat and posters are mostly well off white men, and with all due respect, you won’t be in physical danger if Trump pushes stop and frisk or fires up his Deportation Force, or starts rounding up Muslims. Well, I’m not a well off white man, and I can’t be blasé about giving Trump a chance.
    I’m not going to wait four years, or two years , or two weeks. The Republicans began their resistance against Obama on day one. I’ll give Trump the same fvcking chance the Republicans gave Obama-none.
    And I will never accept that man as my President.

  67. Pch101 says:

    @stonetools:

    You get it.

    Some of the others who post here are under the impression that the camps need to be built, the ovens fired up and the showers fully operational before doing something.

    We don’t know yet whether Trump meant much of what he said, but it would be wise for now to assume the worst and to take him literally.

  68. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @stonetools: Indeed.

    It’s easy to be “principled” if your life will look the same regardless of the outcome. But the flip side of letting Trumpkins rage against the system is that it is inevitably going to be black people and brown people and Muslims and LGBTs and poor women who bear the brunt of their ire, not tech-bros in Seattle.

  69. stonetools says:

    @Tim:

    I’m guessing that you are a well off white male, right?
    One of the good things about a Trump regime is that self -satisfied purists like you are going to get a good look at what “evil” is really is. Listen up,dumpkopf. Evil isn’t a slightly more corporatist financial policy, or a slightly less green environment policy.That’s less good. A Clinton Administration’s policy might not be as “good” as a Sanders Administration policy, but from a liberal POV they would still be “good”. Doubt that? Ask Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

    Evil is dismantling the ACA, so that 22 million people lose their health insurance.
    Evil is repealing Dodd-Frank, so the financial markets can speculate us into another financial crash.
    Evil is banning all Muslims from entering the USA, and rounding up the ones here and putting them in internment camps after the inevitable next terrorist attack.
    Evil is deporting 11 million people, some of which haven’t seen the country they are being deporting to since they were children
    Evil is tearing up the Iranian nuclear pact, and abandoning any attempt at preventing climate change.
    Evil is cancelling executive orders aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and firing up old coal plants that will increase those emissions
    Evil is staffing the federal judiciary with lots of little Trumpkins who will snuff out pro civil rights policy, and green-light more voter suppression efforts.That will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 20 years

    Understand the difference between true evil and less good yet?
    Actually I expect you never will. That’s how the right wing wins-they have useful idiots like you who they can rely on to sit out the fight.

  70. Ben Wolf says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: Of course it isn’t, but calling for a petition just makes them giggle. They’d actually respect “let’s get ’em.” We might have to become more militant to start winning as they don’t appear to understand anything else.

  71. Ben Wolf says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: Yes, he’s going to escape xenophobia by moving to a xenophobic country.

  72. Mikey says:

    @stonetools: People like Tim remind me of something a friend of mine told me a couple weeks before the election: a third-party vote is one of the most significant expressions of privilege.

    It’s easy to “vote your conscience” if that conscience isn’t going to end up getting shot for doing nothing besides being black.

    It’s easy to “vote your conscience” if that conscience isn’t going to end up having its entire family deported.

    It’s easy to “vote your conscience” if that conscience isn’t going to get its life-saving health insurance arbitrarily cancelled.

    I could go on for a while, but I’m sure you understand, and probably much more so than my upper-middle-class white male self.

  73. Moosebreath says:

    @Pch101:

    “Some of the others who post here are under the impression that the camps need to be built, the ovens fired up and the showers fully operational before doing something.”

    And some of us think doing something which has a 0% chance of working is a waste of time, and when it fails it lowers the morale of one’s supporters. If someone has a suggestion which has a chance of working, I would be willing to listen, and likely support it.

  74. Pch101 says:

    @Moosebreath:

    Wars of attrition are won by taking a long view, not by winning individual battles.

    In this case, learn something from the GOP: Complain endlessly. Just as long as it unifies your side and does not completely alienate the middle, it really doesn’t matter what you complain about or how you do it.

    Forget what the GOP thinks. They certainly don’t care what you think.

  75. Tim says:

    @stonetools:

    Go ahead, call me and others who think both candidates stunk this year “useful idiots” if you want, if that’s what makes you feel superior. YOU are a prime example of those who turned people off to the Democratic party. YOU are an elitist! “Trust us, we know better than you, the underclass! Just vote for who we tell you to vote for and go sit in the corner while the ADULTS make the decisions.” That is how you lost the blue collar Democrats!

    Oh, and by the way, I don’t think Hillary is “evil.” I was using a time-honored phrase regarding situations in which one doesn’t like the choices they’ve been given. You’re just a think-skinned bastard who takes everything literally when it suits your needs. Regardless, I DID NOT WANT HER AS MY PRESIDENT!! And, evidently, based on the numbers, millions of Democrats felt the same way. GO BLAME THEM! Better yet, blame the Democratic Party as a whole for choosing the ONLY candidate who could be beaten by a con man like Trump!

    And yes, I’m a white male and I consider myself well enough off in my recently-begun retirement. I spent 40 years working for the U.S. government, 20 as an enlisted man in the U.S. Air Force and 20 as a federal civilian employee. Just so you know, that doesn’t make me a rich man but I earned what I have. So, you can call me a “dumbkopf” all you want, it’s your 1st Amendment right! But until you and those like you learn how to have REAL civil discourse, you will always be disappointed in outcomes.

    Now let’s see if you can restrain yourself and walk away, or fire back and once again prove how think-skinned you are. It’s a trait you share with Trump!

  76. stonetools says:

    @Moosebreath:

    Sadly, virtually nothing we can do can work right now. That’s how fwcked we are, and it’s unlikely to change for a while. The ACLU can file some lawsuits to keep Trump from instantly screwing the vulnerable, but that’s about it. You are essentially telling folks to do nothing at all, but wait to get screwed.
    I’m not a big fan of protests and demonstrations, but they do boost morale and get people moving.You know what does hurt morale? Doing nothing , while having the feeling that you can do nothing.
    Note what the Republicans did back in 2009. They immediately began to resist with all their might, and stirred up a movement they called the Tea Party. President Obama derided it back in 2009, but by November 2010, they were sweeping elections. That’s the blueprint the left needs to follow. Like it or not, it’s been shown to work.

  77. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    YOU are an elitist! “Trust us, we know better than you, the underclass! Just vote for who we tell you to vote for and go sit in the corner while the ADULTS make the decisions.”

    That’s pretty much what the GOP does, except it hands out books of matches and gasoline at the same time.

    Incidentally, you don’t see the irony of claiming to be an anti-big government libertarian-leaning Republican who spent his life employed by the government?

  78. Tim says:

    @Mikey:

    My conscience is doing perfectly fine, thank you. See my last post. It applies to you as well.

    And once again, look at the numbers! It wasn’t the third party voters who cost Hillary the election. She couldn’t even get her base out to vote and a significant portion of them actually voted for Trump!

    @Pch101:

    I see no irony there at all. I think you’ll find more folks who lean towards Libertarian values in government than outside it. You know what I find ironic, the fact that the day after Veterans Day, you think that someone who spent 20 years as an enlisted man in the Air Force was just “employed by the government.” I was a public servant for 40 years! I did it because I enjoyed what I was doing and I was good at it and it did provide enough for me to raise a family.

    You just seem to deal in stereotypes. You have no concept of political nuance. All Republicans are bad. All Libertarians worship (ugh!) Ron Paul. If you can’t see that people are complex and your little labels don’t apply to everyone, then that is the problem. Also, you forgot one of the words I used to describe my political affiliation, Moderate! We are MOST of America and always have been. I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents. I vote for a person, not a party.

  79. stonetools says:

    @Tim:

    Go ahead, call me and others who think both candidates stunk this year “useful idiots” if you want, if that’s what makes you feel superior.

    Doesn’t make feel superior. Makes me feel sad-and right. Believe me , I would be happy to be wrong.

    Regardless, I DID NOT WANT HER AS MY PRESIDENT!!

    Hey, mission accomplished. Congratulations.

    And, evidently, based on the numbers, millions of Democrats felt the same way. GO BLAME THEM!

    Thank you, indeed I will. They’ll likely be blaming themselves once Trump starts fwcking things up, and hurts their privileged selves.

    Better yet, blame the Democratic Party as a whole for choosing the ONLY candidate who could be beaten by a con man like Trump!

    Dude, there WAS no other, better candidate .Clinton was chosen by a majority of the Democratic Party. She wasn’t my preferred choice either, but she was the one nominated AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS thought she was the best candidate for President. You may not like all this, but adults understand that they have to make less than ideal choices. You were like the child who if things go the way he wants in the game, takes his toys and goes home.

    Now let’s see if you can restrain yourself and walk away, or fire back and once again prove how think-skinned you are.

    Thanks for calling me think skinned. I do try.

  80. Mikey says:

    @Tim:

    My conscience is doing perfectly fine, thank you.

    Of course it is.

  81. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    We agree that you don’t see the irony. But that’s because you don’t want to see it.

    So after twenty years providing support for the military adventurism that true libertarians are supposed to oppose, you spent another two decades working in an agency that most likely imposed and enforced regulations that true libertarians would oppose.

    At this point, “libertarian” has become a code word for Republicans who want to be able to complain about other Republicans. Actual libertarians support a small military (not much of a need for one if you aren’t the world’s policeman) and virtually no regulations. That doesn’t leave much room for a libertarian to work for the government without also being a hypocrite.

  82. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    He’s escaping impending chaos by escaping to a relatively stable country. We didn’t want the UK, Germany is out of the question – for reasons I’d think would be obvious, we don’t speak Mandarin and Australia is just too remote.

    I’ve mostly decided that the country can’t be saved from itself. The increasing displacement of the industrial working class – which will continue to escalate – virtually guarantees that our future involves riots and chaos a la 1970s Britain. If anything, once you toss in the inevitable associated racial conflicts it will probably be far worse here.

    Truthfully, this was the easy choice. I’m escaping chaos on the firm’s dime, I get to live in one of the truly great cities of the world and I’m getting an equity bump to boot. Hell man, they’re going to provide me with a driver. It’s the no brainer choice.

    That having been said, I’ve made my money – if I just walked out today the needs of my family are covered for the rest of our lives and then some. This was the easy option, but if it proves unworkable we still have an entire planet of other options from which to choose. As Rachel noted, people with money always have somewhere to go.

    Noah built the ark BEFORE the rain …

  83. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @stonetools:

    And I wish you the best of luck in that.

  84. Tim says:

    @Pch101:

    So after twenty years providing support for the military adventurism that true libertarians are supposed to oppose, you spent another two decades working in an agency that most likely imposed and enforced regulations that true libertarians would oppose.

    Yup, I was right. You have no concept of nuance in political thinking. Everybody else is a stereotype to you. You don’t believe it’s possible to have a mix of beliefs that don’t conform to any single political party.

    If you truly believe that I and the millions of veterans like me were only “providing support for the military adventurism that true libertarians are supposed to oppose” then you are showing your disdain for anyone who wears the uniform. You’ve just told them that all they’ve done is for naught.

    Also, if you think that every government worker just works for agencies that “most likely imposed and enforced regulations that true libertarians would oppose,” then you have reduced all government workers to the level of petty bureaucrat. Stereotype much? Here’s a newsflash for you: REAL Libertarians believe in smaller government, not NO government.

    As I have repeatedly stated, I have some Libertarian leanings, and I think you would find that those leanings tend to be on the side of social issues where the two of us would wholeheartedly agree. That would make me somewhat Libertarian/Progressive Liberal. I do have some Libertarian/Republican leanings as well, because I’m a middle of the road moderate! I’m the kind of voter who should be courted by both sides, not insulted by the likes of you. That is what you and the other whiners looking to blame somebody don’t get! Keep it up buddy! You are just doing harm to your own cause with every comment you make.

  85. Tim says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I’m sure you and your family are going to love living in Paris. Is this the first time your career has offered a chance for you to reside overseas?

    I enjoyed (almost) all of my overseas postings to various embassies in Europe and the Middle East. I spent some time in Paris on government business but never lived there. It wouldn’t be high on my personal list but I’ve had friends who absolutely adored their time there. My favorite postings were Berlin and Copenhagen and I would gladly go back to either tomorrow if I could get someone else to fund it.

    Good luck in France. Keep us posted. Your thoughtful postings (and even some of those that were more off-the-cuff) are one of the reasons I have continued to mostly lurk and read the comments section here at OTB in spite of all the trolls on both sides.

  86. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    My point is that you probably aren’t a libertarian, and that you use the label without understanding what it means.

    Most self-proclaimed libertarians are garden-variety conservatives who reject fundamental tenets of libertarian belief; they just think that it’s cool to think of themselves as being free thinkers as they spew the stuff that other conservatives spew.

    What kind of libertarian worth his salt would extol the virtues of being a “public servant” when the philosophy rejects most regulation as being coercive? This makes as little sense as calling yourself a Christian if you reject Jesus.

  87. Tim says:

    @Pch101:

    And my point is that you see these labels as only representing the most extreme views of any particular party. In the REAL WORLD, people are not monolithic in their beliefs. I am all of the above in one way or another, but I gravitate towards MODERATE Libertarian positions and MODERATE Republican issues and some of those stances would also have me labeled by some as socially Liberal/Progressive.

    Stop trying to stereotype and put people in neat little boxes. Stop trying to tell people that their beliefs are what YOU think they should be and what YOU think they should be labeled.

    You just don’t get it, do you?

  88. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    No worries. I’ve become accustomed to conservatives who veer between abuse of the language and unbridled hypocrisy.

    For example, I have a relative who detests the idea of socialized medicine, yet he has easily taken a million dollars worth of medical services from Medicare.

    Like you, he can’t fathom why I would find this to be contradictory, or the logical inconsistency of his desire to take free stuff from the government while denying it to everyone else. So sure, I’m used to guys like you who can rationalize anything.

  89. Moosebreath says:

    @stonetools:

    ” You are essentially telling folks to do nothing at all, but wait to get screwed.”

    No, I’m not. I am saying don’t do something which takes a long time to explain, has zero chance of working, and wins no allies. I am saying wait for something which is clear and easy to explain where Trump is hurting people, where we will have allies, and therefore have non-zero chances of winning.

  90. An Interested Party says:

    I think a lot of people are underestimating what a disaster the next four years will be for Republicans…let us remember what happened the last time Republicans had complete control in Washington…it didn’t end well for them…yes, they hold enormous power at the state level and, for now, hold all the cards in Washington, but if the past 24 years have shown us anything, it is that majorities are never permanent and talk of either party being dead is extremely premature and always turns out to be wrong…

  91. Matt says:

    @bill: I don’t know of a single college in this area that cancelled any classes for the bullshit you’re claiming. So if you could tell me what college you’re talking about I’d love to know.

  92. Grewgills says:

    Some of the things Clinton said in her call today are good places to start.She talked briefly about Comey. We should keep that alive. The FBI director rigged the election for Trump. Use his own crude, simplistic, but effective messaging against him.
    She primarily talked about mobilizing at the local and state level, to build the party back from the ground up. That is what needs to happen. Hopefully Sanders and Warren and a few more can help do a lot there.

  93. Tyrell says:

    @Jen: The “final” vote count that I am seeing has Trump ahead. (Nov. 12).

  94. rachel says:

    @Pch101:

    This makes as little sense as calling yourself a Christian if you reject Jesus.

    You may have noticed: there are plenty of ‘Christians’ who do that. The Dominionists and the followers of the Prosperity Gospel, to name two.

  95. wr says:

    @Tim: So Hillary is “evil,” but how dare we then object to you calling her evil because that’s not what you meant. You’re a “libertarian,” but how dare we ascribe the values of libertarians to you, because that’s not what you meant.

    Language only works as a means of communications if we all agree on the meanings of words. If you have private meanings for all the words you use, no one will understand you and it’s no one’s fault but your own.

  96. Jack says:

    There are zero electoral votes in the state of DENIAL.

  97. george says:

    I’m with MR and Doug on this one. If this is done once, it’ll be done in every election – the precedent will be irresistible to whoever loses the next election.

    And there’s always going to be a rational for going that route, everything from the elections were rigged to the opposing candidate is irremediably evil to election fraud to candidates lying during the campaign. This is the kind of thing that destroys a country.

    Trump is going to be a disaster, but not nearly as complete a disaster as pulling this off would be.

  98. george says:

    @stonetools:

    I’m not going to wait four years, or two years , or two weeks. The Republicans began their resistance against Obama on day one. I’ll give Trump the same fvcking chance the Republicans gave Obama-none.
    And I will never accept that man as my President.

    I think that’s more or less the norm now, and has been at least since Bush Jr, and possibly Bill Clinton. Its not even a “both sides do it”, its more a “just about everyone does it”. There are Republicans who don’t accept Trump as their President, there were Democrats who didn’t accept H.Clinton as their candidate. Its even arguable that its a good thing all around – if power corrupts (and it seems to) its good for there to be a lot of opposition to whoever’s in power. Parliamentary democracies are based on this, and many work very well.

  99. Andrew says:

    @george:

    if power corrupts (and it seems to) its good for there to be a lot of opposition to whoever’s in power. Parliamentary democracies are based on this, and many work very well.

    The corruptible seek power.

  100. grumpy realist says:

    @wr: Tim must be someone who works at the USPTO: “the applicant is his own lexicographer.”

    Which is why patent infringement suits can be really loopy.

  101. Tim says:

    Well, I guess I must have done something right because the trolls came out and piled on, using their usual bullying tactics. They throw out insults at somebody they do not even know and try to judge their entire life and career while knowing absolutely NOTHING about those they pick on. I’m guessing that in “real life,” most of them couldn’t win an argument to save their lives but on the internet, they think of themselves as big men and throw around the weight they think they have.

    Well, I don’t need this crap. I’m too busy enjoying my well-deserved retirement. I’ll go back to lurking (for now) and continue to just down-vote anything I see as idiotic, mean, or blatantly incorrect. I’ll read the usually well-written and thought-provoking pieces written by the OTB regulars without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks that seem all too prevalent in the comments area. I’ll gladly read and admire the posts of those commenters who engage in good discussion of the topics at hand and try NOT to feed the trolls in the future.

    The trolls, of course, will claim victory, but all they did was bully a perceived outsider to get him off of their playground. Grow up!!

  102. Pch101 says:

    @Tim:

    I would strongly suggest that you avoid posting comments on websites if you don’t wish to be critiqued.

    Nobody bullied you. Nobody threatened you or your family. Get over yourself.

  103. Pch101 says:

    @george:

    If this is done once, it’ll be done in every election – the precedent will be irresistible to whoever loses the next election.

    Did you sleep through the birther movement and all of the other stuff that was done to attack the legitimacy of the last two Democratic presidents, those Democrats who sought the office, and the Democratic Congressional leadership?

  104. george says:

    @Pch101:

    Did you sleep through the birther movement and all of the other stuff that was done to attack the legitimacy of the last two Democratic presidents, those Democrats who sought the office, and the Democratic Congressional leadership?

    Um, I wrote that attacking the legitimacy of opposing party Presidents has been the norm since at least Bush and possibly Clinton … that would seem to include both Clinton and Obama.

    Unless you’re noting that I didn’t mention congress, in which case you’re quite correct, I should have mentioned that saying that congress hasn’t been considered legitimate for at least as long, and probably a lot longer actually. When was the last time congress has had an approval rating anywhere close to 50%?

  105. Pch101 says:

    @george:

    You said previously, “If this is done once, it’ll be done in every election.”

    Well, guess what: The Republicans have already done it.

  106. Grewgills says:

    @Pch101:
    He looked to be referring to actually succeeding in getting electors to switch their votes to change the EC totals and throw the election into chaos. That is what should not actually be done. That is the precedent that should not be set.
    The precedent of questioning the legitimacy of the president elect has a long and storied history. The recent ramping up of that during the Obama years was horrible, but ultimately very successful and success breeds imitation.
    Trump’s legitimacy can be easily cast in doubt for a number of reasons and Democrats (if they want to win) will be following Republicans’ example on this:
    1) He lost the popular vote by about 2 million
    2) Comey’s antics
    3) Giulani’s cosy relationship with the NY field office of the FBI, and probably additional overreach in the near future.
    4) Voter suppression laws, particularly in WI and NC
    There is more, but that is enough of a start to get the base energized as long as there is real work done at the local and state level to build from there up. That is the other big lesson we need to learn from the GOP, not all politics is local, but if you don’t start it there you will ultimately fail.

  107. Pch101 says:

    @Grewgills:

    It’s a non-issue. People are free to lobby electors as they like. The odds of getting even one elector to switch are close to zero; you can expect that electors can and will ignore the requests.

    But that isn’t the point of the lobbying effort. The goal is to remind everyone that Clinton received more votes. The implication is that the GOP should never have nominated him in the first place.

    As I have noted, anything that rallies Democrats and the left but that doesn’t completely alienate independents should be attempted. Complain, complain, complain, complain, complain.

    Your list is pretty good. I would Trump’s taxes, his team’s relationship with Russia and an endless series of sexual assault hearings to it. Never stop challenging his legitimacy, ever.

  108. rachel says:

    @Andrew:What a useless dictum. Everybody who wants to do anything in this world (whether for good or bad) seeks power because without that you are merely a victim.

  109. Micki Mortenson says:

    I had a friend, ok an acquaintance, say she saw my name on the petition. She was telling how proud she was of me. I wasn’t able to find a way to check but I didn’t sign it. She said it was the name I go by daily and on Facebook, the thing is I would never sign something official with my nick name….I think the whole thing is hanky. How would electors even know if they were just pulling names off of Facbeook? I don’t like Trump, but I do believe in the system. The idea my “name” or identity could be being used against my wishes really bothers me.

  110. Jen says:

    @Tyrell: Um, nope. She has been ahead, and remains ahead. The totals have not been finalized yet, but considering where the remaining votes are outstanding, she is virtually assured to finish out with more popular votes.

  111. Jen says:

    Additionally, the ballots currently outstanding cut the legs out from under the argument that Clinton didn’t mobilize voters…it is looking more and more like she might match Obama’s 2012 turnout. She just didn’t turn them out in the right places. That matters. But so does the fact that she will lose the election with, potentially, the largest margin of winning votes for someone who ends up losing.

  112. george says:

    @Pch101:

    Really? The Republican party convinced the electoral college to ignore election results? When?

  113. Pch101 says:

    @george:

    So in answer to my earlier question, you did sleep through the birther movement and all of the other stuff that was done to attack the legitimacy of the last two Democratic presidents, those Democrats who sought the office, and the Democratic Congressional leadership.

    Your position is absurd. The electors are humans, and other humans have the right to ask those electors to be faithless.

    In turn, the electors are free to ignore those requests, and you can bet that they will. They are also free to listen if they choose to listen, although they almost certainly won’t.

    Feel free to tell them that would prefer that they not change their votes if that pleases you. But cease and desist from your lame attempts to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

    Faithless electors were contemplated by Hamilton in Federalist 68. They are part of the checks and balances system. I would say that this is one of those times when checks and balances would come in handy.

  114. al-Ameda says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Truthfully, if their complacent asses were so happy to sit back and pout, instead of voting when faced with the possibility of someone like Trump, they can enjoy the chaos they’ve helped usher in as well. I think I may be coming to the conclusion that the whole thing – the whole country – is just too stupid, or too complacent, or too brain addled reality TV watcher to survive.

    Thank you, well said.

    I’ve been saying for a long time that America is a very dumbed down country, and this election season confirmed all of it. Democrats should have learned the following lessons:

    (1) really, facts don’t matter,
    (2) “sure Trump is bad but Hillary, ewwwww …”
    (3) use of a private email server is worse than continuing the economic policies that got us out of the worst economic collapse in 80 years and …
    (4) there are no negative consequences for recent 6 years of unrelenting obstruction and shutting down the federal government twice.

  115. george says:

    @Pch101:

    So in answer to my earlier question, you did sleep through the birther movement and all of the other stuff that was done to attack the legitimacy of the last two Democratic presidents, those Democrats who sought the office, and the Democratic Congressional leadership.

    I’m missing something. Right from the start I said that de-legitimizing Presidents has been going on since at least Bush and probably Clinton. Given that “since” includes the two Democratic Presidents you mention, Clinton and Obama, I’m not seeing why you ask if I slept through it … I pointed out that de-legitimizing before you brought it up. What am I missing about your question?

    In fact you seem to agree with me that de-legitimizing is not new … or am I misreading you?

    What would be new, or so I and some others on here are arguing, is the electoral college ignoring the results of the election. Now its quite possible I’m wrong and there is a precedent for the electoral ignoring election results – I’m a physicist/engineer rather than a political historian and its quite possible that I’m simply ignorant about previous occurrences. If so, why not just tell me when it happened instead of asking if I slept through something I pointed out before you mentioned it?

  116. Pch101 says:

    @george:

    What would be new, or so I and some others on here are arguing, is the electoral college ignoring the results of the election.

    If you would bother to read Federalist 68, then you would know that it is perfectly legitimate for electors to flip the bird to the voters.

    One reason that we have an electoral college is to rein in the electorate when they do something stupid. The very thing that you are decrying as horrible and unprecedented was deliberately included in the Constitution as a check and balance.. How do you not get this?

  117. george says:

    @Pch101:

    That’s a plausible argument; I’d reply that once it is done once it’ll be done automatically for every subsequent election, and it’ll lead to anarchy. Whether or not that is true is unknown, clearly you don’t think it will be. I may be wrong, it may be no more destabilizing than the current partisan divide.

    However, I still don’t see how that relates to your accusation that I slept through the de-legitimizing of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, which again, I’d pointed out from the start?

  118. jd says:

    I think, someday in the not too distant future, we’re going to climb from the rubble of our homes and say, “You know, that Electoral College option is looking pretty good right about now.”

  119. george says:

    @jd:

    Possibly. I heard the same thing before Reagan was elected, and when Watergate was going on. I doubt the military, who enjoy being alive, are really going to allow any President to start a nuclear war just for the fun of it.

    Reagan, and Nixon at the end, were considered to be as bad as Trump. Many Republicans think Obama was going to bring in communism (and/or Islam, though I never quite figured out how Obama could be both a God-less communist and a Muslim).

    People are getting hysterical about this. Its good to watch closely, but crying wolf too often is counter productive. The trick is to reform the party so the GOP loses its control of the Senate in the mid-term; running around saying the sky is falling is not helping.

  120. jd says:

    @george: Reagan, and Nixon at the end, were considered to be as bad as Trump at the beginning.

    Hope I’m not reading too much into that. 🙂

  121. george says:

    @jd:

    True for Nixon, but not Reagan. He was ridiculed from the start (remember the various articles and jokes about Bonzo being a better choice than Reagan, and the comments laughing at the possibility of a retired B movie actor becoming President)?

    Of course one difference is that Reagan was likable on a personal level; even Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who was anything but a fan of Reagan’s politics, commented on how likable Reagan was as a person. I don’t think anyone’s ever accused Trump of being personally likable.